Around the NHL 2022-2023 *Mod warning in effect pg145

[BadgersandBlues]

I'd like to see Bedard go to Columbus (Obviously if we're not in the running).

I also agree with the above about our D. I finally re-upped my Athletic sub (It was like 1 buck for the year or something dumb, ok sure why not) and I read the article JR did on Army's moves since we won the Cup.

Everything comes back to us moving on from AP and how we've been trying (unsuccessfully) to play catchup/plug that gap.

It's pretty baffling how the guy who built our blueline with a vision of tall, lengthy, smooth-skating D-men assigned with keeping play to the outside and forcing chips/loss of possession control, retrieving said pucks, then transitioning it up quickly to our forwards......saw the best version of that vision win a Cup and then go on to be the best team in the league until COVID shut us down - all of a sudden woke up one day and went.....Naw fam, this ain't it no more, we gotta change it up.

It's just so dumb. AP and another 4ish Mil D-man is such a better pairing then Krug-Faulk, and for the same money, if not less! I think Army has some time before we move on from him, but can we please, PLEASE, as loud as I can for the people in the back:

STOP LETTING ELITE D-MEN WALK AWAY FROM THIS FRANCHISE!

You woulda thought we would have learned our lesson with Pronger.

 

[Xerloris]

I'd like to see Bedard go to Columbus (Obviously if we're not in the running).

I also agree with the above about our D. I finally re-upped my Athletic sub (It was like 1 buck for the year or something dumb, ok sure why not) and I read the article JR did on Army's moves since we won the Cup.

Everything comes back to us moving on from AP and how we've been trying (unsuccessfully) to play catchup/plug that gap.

It's pretty baffling how the guy who built our blueline with a vision of tall, lengthy, smooth-skating D-men assigned with keeping play to the outside and forcing chips/loss of possession control, retrieving said pucks, then transitioning it up quickly to our forwards......saw the best version of that vision win a Cup and then go on to be the best team in the league until COVID shut us down - all of a sudden woke up one day and went.....Naw fam, this ain't it no more, we gotta change it up.

It's just so dumb. AP and another 4ish Mil D-man is such a better pairing then Krug-Faulk, and for the same money, if not less! I think Army has some time before we move on from him, but can we please, PLEASE, as loud as I can for the people in the back:

STOP LETTING ELITE D-MEN WALK AWAY FROM THIS FRANCHISE!

You woulda thought we would have learned our lesson with Pronger.

Pronger was traded.

AP wanted to leave, if he wanted to stay he would have signed the contract. If you're advocating for giving him anything he wanted then that's how you end up with 3 players making 11m/yr like the Leafs. No thanks.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

Pronger was traded.

AP wanted to leave, if he wanted to stay he would have signed the contract. If you're advocating for giving him anything he wanted then that's how you end up with 3 players making 11m/yr like the Leafs. No thanks.

Strawman, but sure.

 

[Xerloris]

Strawman, but sure.

The Leafs should be looked at as a cautionary tale.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

The Leafs should be looked at as a cautionary tale.

The Leafs have been one of the best teams in the league for the last five years. Yes, that hasn't translated to playoff success, but they also play against Boston and Tampa every year in the playoffs lol. Ya know, the last four East Conference Champs? Hell, two years ago BOTH teams in the Cup Final were from their division.

Were the Blues terrible in the 90's and early 2000's? No, we just weren't as good as those stacked Avs/Wings teams. It happens.

And again, you made a strawman. I never said give him anything he wants. But throwing a NMC on his contract vs. giving Krug 8M real dollars for the next four years with a full NTC - seems pretty clear which one would have been the better choice.

 

[Xerloris]

The Leafs have been one of the best teams in the league for the last five years. Yes, that hasn't translated to playoff success, but they also play against Boston and Tampa every year in the playoffs lol. Ya know, the last four East Conference Champs? Hell, two years ago BOTH teams in the Cup Final were from their division.

Were the Blues terrible in the 90's and early 2000's? No, we just weren't as good as those stacked Avs/Wings teams. It happens.

And again, you made a strawman. I never said give him anything he wants. But throwing a NMC on his contract vs. giving Krug 8M real dollars for the next four years with a full NTC - seems pretty clear which one would have been the better choice.

We played and beat Boston in 7 games. If the Leafs were so f***ing good they could do the same but they spend their cap on everything but what they actually need. Like right now, you're advocating that we should have spend all that money on ANOTHER RD when LD is our weakness. Pietrangelo nor Faulk can play their offside so having another RD would not have helped. If We had offered him a NMC who's to say then he doesn't want 9M a season? the dude did not want to be here and he was going to find a reason to leave no matter what.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

We played and beat Boston in 7 games. If the Leafs were so f***ing good they could do the same but they spend their cap on everything but what they actually need. Like right now, you're advocating that we should have spend all that money on ANOTHER RD when LD is our weakness. Pietrangelo nor Faulk can play their offside so having another RD would not have helped. If We had offered him a NMC who's to say then he doesn't want 9M a season? the dude did not want to be here and he was going to find a reason to leave no matter what.

.....Sigh. I was trying to just let it go. Ok fine, let's get into it.

Your Leafs argument is dumb. We spend more today on our D from a cap perspective then had we kept all our boys together. Also, you're still twisting this argument in all sorts of different directions that I am clearly not advocating. I'm not advocated spending more on RD today. No one is advocating on spending more on RD today. That's a strawman. I am saying letting AP go in the past was a mistake that we made, one that has then lead us to a series of other mistakes on how we allocate cap dollars on our D. As Brain39 pointed out earlier in this thread, our D today could have a much different look had we kept our powder dry on the Faulk trade and instead fully committed to keeping AP (Presumably getting an extension worked out prior to his final season here).

Our D today could have looked like:

Dunn (4M) - AP (8.5M)
Edmundson (3.5M) - Parayko (6.5M)
Mikkola (1.9M) - Bortuzzo (.95M)
Rosen as the 7th at (.76M)

This D costs 26.11M against the cap and looks a hell of a lot more balanced then Krug/Faulk, Leddy/Parayko, and Mikkola/Bortz with Rosen as the 7th D (At a combined cost of 27.11M against the cap)

Now, to your second point - I'm so sick of people who are jilted by AP leaving, twisting themselves in knots over this and that and "He would be here if he wanted," narratives. It's a job. If someone is offering you better terms for your job, you're a moron for having loyalty, b/c no corporation in the world is going to have loyalty to you if you start slipping.

It was pretty widely reported that the major sticking point in AP's negotiations was a NMC. I think signing bonus v. "regular pay," was a bit of an issue as well, but not nearly as much as a NMC. That was Army's and AP's red line, and neither crossed it. We offered him more actual dollars then he was going to get on the 7 year deal from Vegas, and almost assuredly more then he'd get playing for Vegas then signing a 1 year deal at age 37/38. He wanted the stability of a NMC, which has become pretty darn standard for most top level/elite UFAs. Army didn't want to give it to him, ok fine, that's his choice. But we're allowed to criticize him for said choice, when said choice has lead us down a path to which we're now in this quagmire of, "We're better then some, but clearly not greater then most when it comes to our D." For a team that was supposedly smack dab in the middle of it's competitive window, that's pretty damning.

TLDR - Our current D costs 1M more against the cap then the above pairings, doesn't look like it's outperforming it in any way, and was totally within our control to make happen had we wanted it. Hence why your Leafs argument is dumb. For a team that was supposedly looking to continue to compete for Cups, this has been a massive mismanagement of our defensive cap structure for the value we're receiving. The main point I was trying to make in my previous posts, that you clearly missed, is that the most boggling thing about it all is that Army was the architect of this better D, saw how good it was when it was on, and yet for some reason wasn't committed to keeping it intact to chase more Cups.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

.....Sigh. I was trying to just let it go. Ok fine, let's get into it.

Your Leafs argument is dumb. We spend more today on our D from a cap perspective then had we kept all our boys together. Also, you're still twisting this argument in all sorts of different directions that I am clearly not advocating. I'm not advocated spending more on RD today. No one is advocating on spending more on RD today. That's a strawman. I am saying letting AP go in the past was a mistake that we made, one that has then lead us to a series of other mistakes on how we allocate cap dollars on our D. As Brain39 pointed out earlier in this thread, our D today could have a much different look had we kept our powder dry on the Faulk trade and instead fully committed to keeping AP (Presumably getting an extension worked out prior to his final season here).

Our D today could have looked like:

Dunn (4M) - AP (8.5M)
Edmundson (3.5M) - Parayko (6.5M)
Mikkola (1.9M) - Bortuzzo (.95M)
Rosen as the 7th at (.76M)

This D costs 26.11M against the cap and looks a hell of a lot more balanced then Krug/Faulk, Leddy/Parayko, and Mikkola/Bortz with Rosen as the 7th D (At a combined cost of 27.11M against the cap)

Now, to your second point - I'm so sick of people who are jilted by AP leaving, twisting themselves in knots over this and that and "He would be here if he wanted," narratives. It's a job. If someone is offering you better terms for your job, you're a moron for having loyalty, b/c no corporation in the world is going to have loyalty to you if you start slipping.

It was pretty widely reported that the major sticking point in AP's negotiations was a NMC. I think signing bonus v. "regular pay," was a bit of an issue as well, but not nearly as much as a NMC. That was Army's and AP's red line, and neither crossed it. We offered him more actual dollars then he was going to get on the 7 year deal from Vegas, and almost assuredly more then he'd get playing for Vegas then signing a 1 year deal at age 37/38. He wanted the stability of a NMC, which has become pretty darn standard for most top level/elite UFAs. Army didn't want to give it to him, ok fine, that's his choice. But we're allowed to criticize him for said choice, when said choice has lead us down a path to which we're now in this quagmire of, "We're better then some, but clearly not greater then most when it comes to our D." For a team that was supposedly smack dab in the middle of it's competitive window, that's pretty damning.

TLDR - Our current D costs 1M more against the cap then the above pairings, doesn't look like it's outperforming it in any way, and was totally within our control to make happen had we wanted it. Hence why your Leafs argument is dumb. For a team that was supposedly looking to continue to compete for Cups, this has been a massive mismanagement of our defensive cap structure for the value we're receiving. The main point I was trying to make in my previous posts, that you clearly missed, is that the most boggling thing about it all is that Army was the architect of this better D, saw how good it was when it was on, and yet for some reason wasn't committed to keeping it intact to chase more Cups.

Repeating spin from AP’s agent doesn’t make it true.

 

[PJJJP]

.....Sigh. I was trying to just let it go. Ok fine, let's get into it.

Your Leafs argument is dumb. We spend more today on our D from a cap perspective then had we kept all our boys together. Also, you're still twisting this argument in all sorts of different directions that I am clearly not advocating. I'm not advocated spending more on RD today. No one is advocating on spending more on RD today. That's a strawman. I am saying letting AP go in the past was a mistake that we made, one that has then lead us to a series of other mistakes on how we allocate cap dollars on our D. As Brain39 pointed out earlier in this thread, our D today could have a much different look had we kept our powder dry on the Faulk trade and instead fully committed to keeping AP (Presumably getting an extension worked out prior to his final season here).

Our D today could have looked like:

Dunn (4M) - AP (8.5M)
Edmundson (3.5M) - Parayko (6.5M)
Mikkola (1.9M) - Bortuzzo (.95M)
Rosen as the 7th at (.76M)

This D costs 26.11M against the cap and looks a hell of a lot more balanced then Krug/Faulk, Leddy/Parayko, and Mikkola/Bortz with Rosen as the 7th D (At a combined cost of 27.11M against the cap)

Now, to your second point - I'm so sick of people who are jilted by AP leaving, twisting themselves in knots over this and that and "He would be here if he wanted," narratives. It's a job. If someone is offering you better terms for your job, you're a moron for having loyalty, b/c no corporation in the world is going to have loyalty to you if you start slipping.

It was pretty widely reported that the major sticking point in AP's negotiations was a NMC. I think signing bonus v. "regular pay," was a bit of an issue as well, but not nearly as much as a NMC. That was Army's and AP's red line, and neither crossed it. We offered him more actual dollars then he was going to get on the 7 year deal from Vegas, and almost assuredly more then he'd get playing for Vegas then signing a 1 year deal at age 37/38. He wanted the stability of a NMC, which has become pretty darn standard for most top level/elite UFAs. Army didn't want to give it to him, ok fine, that's his choice. But we're allowed to criticize him for said choice, when said choice has lead us down a path to which we're now in this quagmire of, "We're better then some, but clearly not greater then most when it comes to our D." For a team that was supposedly smack dab in the middle of it's competitive window, that's pretty damning.

TLDR - Our current D costs 1M more against the cap then the above pairings, doesn't look like it's outperforming it in any way, and was totally within our control to make happen had we wanted it. Hence why your Leafs argument is dumb. For a team that was supposedly looking to continue to compete for Cups, this has been a massive mismanagement of our defensive cap structure for the value we're receiving. The main point I was trying to make in my previous posts, that you clearly missed, is that the most boggling thing about it all is that Army was the architect of this better D, saw how good it was when it was on, and yet for some reason wasn't committed to keeping it intact to chase more Cups.

I think we should have kept AP but one little detail is that I don't think Edmundson is on the 2023 roster. IF we still go through the expansion draft we would have protected AP, Parayko, and Dunn. Most likely Edmundson would have been picked by Seattle, so we would need to find a D partner for Parayko.

 

[Thallis]

Repeating spin from AP’s agent doesn’t make it true.

The spin we got from Strick didn't contradict anything reported previously.

 

[ezcreepin]

At some point I think there needs to be a larger share of blame with the coaching staff than the players. There's no way you can convince me that the Leafs d-core is THAT much better than the Blues that they are crushing the regular season. I don't know who is actually running the defensive schemes, if Van Ryn has full reign or if Berube is the deciding factor, but something has to change. We've been one of the worst teams corsi wise and we give up too many opportunities to the opposition. There are lots of reasons why the Blues suck, but there hasn't been a ton of talk about the coaching staff.

 

[Xerloris]

.....Sigh. I was trying to just let it go. Ok fine, let's get into it.

Your Leafs argument is dumb. We spend more today on our D from a cap perspective then had we kept all our boys together. Also, you're still twisting this argument in all sorts of different directions that I am clearly not advocating. I'm not advocated spending more on RD today. No one is advocating on spending more on RD today. That's a strawman. I am saying letting AP go in the past was a mistake that we made, one that has then lead us to a series of other mistakes on how we allocate cap dollars on our D. As Brain39 pointed out earlier in this thread, our D today could have a much different look had we kept our powder dry on the Faulk trade and instead fully committed to keeping AP (Presumably getting an extension worked out prior to his final season here).

Our D today could have looked like:

Dunn (4M) - AP (8.5M)
Edmundson (3.5M) - Parayko (6.5M)
Mikkola (1.9M) - Bortuzzo (.95M)
Rosen as the 7th at (.76M)

This D costs 26.11M against the cap and looks a hell of a lot more balanced then Krug/Faulk, Leddy/Parayko, and Mikkola/Bortz with Rosen as the 7th D (At a combined cost of 27.11M against the cap)

Now, to your second point - I'm so sick of people who are jilted by AP leaving, twisting themselves in knots over this and that and "He would be here if he wanted," narratives. It's a job. If someone is offering you better terms for your job, you're a moron for having loyalty, b/c no corporation in the world is going to have loyalty to you if you start slipping.

It was pretty widely reported that the major sticking point in AP's negotiations was a NMC. I think signing bonus v. "regular pay," was a bit of an issue as well, but not nearly as much as a NMC. That was Army's and AP's red line, and neither crossed it. We offered him more actual dollars then he was going to get on the 7 year deal from Vegas, and almost assuredly more then he'd get playing for Vegas then signing a 1 year deal at age 37/38. He wanted the stability of a NMC, which has become pretty darn standard for most top level/elite UFAs. Army didn't want to give it to him, ok fine, that's his choice. But we're allowed to criticize him for said choice, when said choice has lead us down a path to which we're now in this quagmire of, "We're better then some, but clearly not greater then most when it comes to our D." For a team that was supposedly smack dab in the middle of it's competitive window, that's pretty damning.

TLDR - Our current D costs 1M more against the cap then the above pairings, doesn't look like it's outperforming it in any way, and was totally within our control to make happen had we wanted it. Hence why your Leafs argument is dumb. For a team that was supposedly looking to continue to compete for Cups, this has been a massive mismanagement of our defensive cap structure for the value we're receiving. The main point I was trying to make in my previous posts, that you clearly missed, is that the most boggling thing about it all is that Army was the architect of this better D, saw how good it was when it was on, and yet for some reason wasn't committed to keeping it intact to chase more Cups.

I think it should be obvious that we traded for Faulk because Armstrong knew AP was walking. Also, there are plenty of examples around this very league of players and teams having loyalty to each other. I like how you forgot about Scandella and Perunovich btw or are they ok to ignore since that makes it harder for you to play make believe? Not having AP has nothing to do with how bad we are defensively. One player will not make a difference with such a shit show and the proof of that is that our defense was just as bad or worse in 2018 before a new coahc and goalie turned it around and oh my god, that was when the great AP was here leading the way. Was that because our Dmen sucked or was it because our coaching staff instituted a stupid ass system that didn't work? If you say it's because of the coaches then why is it the players fault this time?

 

[Thallis]

At some point I think there needs to be a larger share of blame with the coaching staff than the players. There's no way you can convince me that the Leafs d-core is THAT much better than the Blues that they are crushing the regular season. I don't know who is actually running the defensive schemes, if Van Ryn has full reign or if Berube is the deciding factor, but something has to change. We've been one of the worst teams corsi wise and we give up too many opportunities to the opposition. There are lots of reasons why the Blues suck, but there hasn't been a ton of talk about the coaching staff.

The Blues have been a good possession team under Berube when we had the personnel to match, though. Maybe there's something to be said about Berube not knowing what to do with a more skilled roster in the transition game, but this forward group hasn't really shown it can consistently keep up in zone time with the better teams in the league. I'm not sure if coaching can fix that since it was the same with Montgomery here.

 

[stl76]

I wish the folks still crying over not signing AP would watch the following video from about 11:15-12:10 and from 15:10-16:40

 

[PJJJP]

So we did offer him a NMC for the later years of the contract. I did not know that. This whole time I was thinking we never offered it at all. Interesting info

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think the issue is that if you're willing to offer a partial NMC for his protection at the end, what's the hold up for offering a complete NMC. I think the tough part was, Petro wasn't going to give Army and the Blues any sort of hometown discount, and I also sort of remember at the time comments about leaving to go to another club has it's intrigue. We ultimately had to 100% match what Vegas offered, and I'm still unsure if Petro would've stayed.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

I wish the folks still crying over not signing AP would watch the following video from about 11:15-12:10 and from 15:10-16:40

Thank you. It was about the money. It was always about the money. Hopefully seeing this again will remind folks of that. Now whether we should have given him that money is a different questions. And in hindsight it looks like maybe we should have, but it was never about DA having silly little rules that keep us from getting top players.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Thank you. It was about the money. It was always about the money. Hopefully seeing this again will remind folks of that. Now whether we should have given him that money, is a different questions. And in hindsight it looks like maybe we should have, but it was never about DA having silly little rules that keep us from getting top players.

It was still just a partial NMC for just the end of the deal. That may have been exactly what Petro asked for, but players usually want that protection in every year, I can't even think of many modified NMC where they only have it in some years, it sort of defeats the purpose of having it.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I think the issue is that if you're willing to offer a partial NMC for his protection at the end, what's the hold up for offering a complete NMC. I think the tough part was, Petro wasn't going to give Army and the Blues any sort of hometown discount, and I also sort of remember at the time comments about leaving to go to another club has it's intrigue. We ultimately had to 100% match what Vegas offered, and I'm still unsure if Petro would've stayed.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

To me the biggest issue isn’t necessarily Petro walking, but how it got to that point. It’s very clear that we weren’t willing to meet the market price to keep him. He ultimately may have still chosen to leave, but we undoubtedly kneecapped ourselves by refusing to even consider a market value contact for an elite defenseman.

 

[PJJJP]

It was still just a partial NMC for just the end of the deal. That may have been exactly what Petro asked for, but players usually want that protection in every year, I can't even think of many modified NMC where they only have it in some years, it sort of defeats the purpose of having it.

Draisatil has a NMC only in his last 3 years, Hyman has a NMC that turns into a NTC for the last 2 years, Marchand had a NMC that turned into a partial NTC this year, Pastrnak just had his NMC kick in last year, Lindholm has a NMC that turns into a NTC for the last 3 years, Kadri has a NMC for the first 4 years and then switches to a NTC, Nichushkin has a NMC for only 3 years, Marchment has a NMC for 1 year, Heiskanen has a NMC for the last 4 years of his contract, Makar doesn't have a NMC, Lindell has a NMC for the last 4 years of his 6 year contract, McAvoy has no trade protection for the first 2 years and then has a NMC for the next 4 and then a partial NTC for the last 2 years. There are lots of examples with partial NMC

 

[bleedblue1223]

Draisatil has a NMC only in his last 3 years, Hyman has a NMC that turns into a NTC for the last 2 years, Marchand had a NMC that turned into a partial NTC this year, Pastrnak just had his NMC kick in last year, Lindholm has a NMC that turns into a NTC for the last 3 years, Kadri has a NMC for the first 4 years and then switches to a NTC, Nichushkin has a NMC for only 3 years, Marchment has a NMC for 1 year, Heiskanen has a NMC for the last 4 years of his contract, Makar doesn't have a NMC, Lindell has a NMC for the last 4 years of his 6 year contract, McAvoy has no trade protection for the first 2 years and then has a NMC for the next 4 and then a partial NTC for the last 2 years. There are lots of examples with partial NMC

The young players have partial NMC because of the CBA doesn't allow them to have them until they've hit certain marks, you have to be 27 or have played 7 seasons to be eligible for one. In general, it's rare for a vet to have a partial NMC, especially when we are talking players of Petro's caliber.

 

[Thallis]

Draisatil has a NMC only in his last 3 years, Hyman has a NMC that turns into a NTC for the last 2 years, Marchand had a NMC that turned into a partial NTC this year, Pastrnak just had his NMC kick in last year, Lindholm has a NMC that turns into a NTC for the last 3 years, Kadri has a NMC for the first 4 years and then switches to a NTC, Nichushkin has a NMC for only 3 years, Marchment has a NMC for 1 year, Heiskanen has a NMC for the last 4 years of his contract, Makar doesn't have a NMC, Lindell has a NMC for the last 4 years of his 6 year contract, McAvoy has no trade protection for the first 2 years and then has a NMC for the next 4 and then a partial NTC for the last 2 years. There are lots of examples with partial NMC

All of these contracts except for Marchand, Nuke, and Kadri were signed when these players were RFAs. Marchand was signed when his career high point was 65, Nichushkin isn't an elite player, and Kadri was identified as a huge risk for regression. Partial NMCs are much more common on RFA contracts, especially in later years that cover when they would be a UFA.

 

[PJJJP]

The young players have partial NMC because of the CBA doesn't allow them to have them until they've hit certain marks, you have to be 27 or have played 7 seasons to be eligible for one. In general, it's rare for a vet to have a partial NMC, especially when we are talking players of Petro's caliber.

Ah my bad, I just went through cap friendly and found all the players with NMC. Makes more sense now but there are a few players who do have partial NMC as a UFA. I'm in the camp we should have kept petro but I've always though that we never offered a NMC at all. Some comparisons to the Petro deal are Hedman, Josi, Jones, Lidholm, Weegar, Hamilton, Karlsson, Reilly, Carlson and Doughty. Josi, Jones, Hamilton, Reilly, and Karlsson got full NMC. Hedman, Doughty, Lindholm, Carlson and Weegar have partial NMC or no NMC.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Ah my bad, I just went through cap friendly and found all the players with NMC. Makes more sense now but there are a few players who do have partial NMC as a UFA. I'm in the camp we should have kept petro but I've always though that we never offered a NMC at all.

Yeah, my takeaway was that we partially offered him everything structure wise, but only doing it partially isn't really doing it at all in a sense. One day, when Petro retires, maybe he'll share how close it really was, but until then who knows. My view of the Faulk trade was that while I was hopeful a deal would still get done, that trade marked something that everyone knew Petro didn't want to return.

 

[PJJJP]

All of these contracts except for Marchand, Nuke, and Kadri were signed when these players were RFAs. Marchand was signed when his career high point was 65, Nichushkin isn't an elite player, and Kadri was identified as a huge risk for regression. Partial NMCs are much more common on RFA contracts, especially in later years that cover when they would be a UFA.

Yeah my bad I didn't know that. I found a different list of good to elite D that have full or partial NMC. Josi, Jones, Hamilton, Reilly, Karlsson, etc... all have full NMC while on the other hand Hedman, Doughty, Carlson, Lindholm, Weegar have partial or no NMC at all. It's just the full NMC was a big deal to petro and we didn't want to offer one